On these trucks, the backup alarm motion sensor may not have been installed correctly and may not sense when the vehicle moves backwards under any circumstances. The vehicle may roll backwards without the backup alarm sounding with the risk of running over or crushing a person standing or working behind the vehicle.

Dealers will reposition the motion sensor in relation to the magnets that rotate when the vehicle moves. The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner notification schedule. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-877-973-3486 or contact the NHTSA auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.

CALIFORNIA: Federal Judge Takes Over Prison Healthcare System------------------------------------------------------------- An alarmed federal judge seized control of California's woefully inadequate prison health care system to ensure that inmates receive the care they're guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution as the toll of preventable deaths increased every week, The San Jose Mercury News reports.

The judge's action, which is one of the most sweeping federal takeover of a prison health care system in the nation's history, cited "incompetence and outright depravity in the rendering of medical care." U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson said he had no choice but to strip the Schwarzenegger administration of management of the $1.1 billion-a-year prison medical system and turn it over to an outside administrator. The San Francisco judge estimated that an inmate dies every six or seven days due to medical negligence or malpractice and describes a bureaucracy engulfed in institutional inertia, unable to fix the problem.

Judge Henderson told the San Jose Mercury News he would move within the next few weeks to name a temporary administrator who could hire qualified physicians and then launch a search for a permanent manager to crack down on mistreatment. Additionally, he noted that his challenge is to find someone who administered a major medical system like Johns Hopkins, received an MBA from Stanford in medical management and served as a prison warden.

Attorneys for the nonprofit Prison Law Office, which brought the action that resulted in Judge Henderson's landmark decision, indicated they would support one of three court-appointed experts as the interim administrator.

On the other hand state officials recently conceded inmates receive shoddy care and indicated as well that they have no plans to appeal the ruling. Instead, they expect to cooperate with Mr. Henderson, who now will have the final say in health care in prisons.

In a press statement, Corrections Secretary Roderick Hickman said, "I have said all along that if something is broken it needs to be fixed. The taxpayers of this state can't afford to keep paying for repeated lawsuits that result from the same kinds of problems such as inadequate health care, poor mental health treatment and insufficient staffing."

Meanwhile, attorneys for the state and inmates described the judge's decision as historic and told the San Jose Mercury News that they were unaware of such a sweeping action undertaken in any other prison health care system.

Mr. Henderson, who at 71 and already on part-time status, hailed it as a "bold and uncharted adventure" that could last several years. The bearded and bespectacled man told AP that he would like "to retire and go fishing" but he feels an obligation to provide humane treatment to the state's 16,000 inmates.

Individuals familiar with the case told the San Jose Mercury News that the judge's decision is expected to shake up the sprawling prison system, which effective Friday is changing its name to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as part of a massive reorganization. They also pointed out that for one of the first times, someone with an independent set of eyes and broad power will be examining prison practices and that could affect the closed culture of the state's 33 prisons.

The hearing, where the judge stated his intention to intervene, was originally set to hear final arguments in the latest episode of a class action lawsuit filed in 2001 by nine plaintiffs, including inmate Marciano Plata. The state previously had entered into a broad legal agreement intended to improve health care.

Sitting in front of a U.S. flag in the quiet courtroom with about 40 spectators, Mr. Henderson calmly described a trail of mostly broken promises made by the state prison authorities dating back 25 years. In the Plata case, Mr. Henderson stated before the judge that over the past four years he's tried to encourage the state "to fix what the state admits is a broken system."

The litany of health care woes shows the rocky road the administration of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger faces in trying to overhaul a dysfunctional prison system where costs defy containment, inmate care is shoddy and guards wield enormous political clout. Along the way, people die needlessly on the inside, while the state spends millions of dollars to guard comatose patients who cannot move, let alone escape.

CAPSTONE TURBINE: NY Court Preliminarily OKs Lawsuit Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Capstone Turbine Corporation, two of its then officers and the underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO).

The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from June 28, 2000 to December 6, 2000. An amended complaint was filed on April 19, 2002. Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's June 28, 2000 initial public offering and November 16, 2000 secondary offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs allege that the prospectuses for these two public offerings were false and misleading in violation of the securities laws because they did not disclose these arrangements.

A committee of the Company's Board of Directors conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter. The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of the Company and of the individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the Amended Complaint. The Company would agree to undertake other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters. Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the Company's insurers. The proposed settlement is pending final approval by parties to the action and the United States District Court Southern District of New York.

The suit is styled "In Re Capstone Turbine Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, docket number 01-CV-11220," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

COMFORT WOMEN: Appeals Court Junks Sexual Slavery Suit V. Japan---------------------------------------------------------------The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed for the second time a damages suit filed against Japan by 15 Asian women, who were allegedly used as "comfort women" or sexual slaves by Japanese military during World War II, Kyodo News reports.

The "comfort women" were used as sex slaves by Japanese soldiers and come from China, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines. They filed the suit in 2000, alleging claims under the Alien Claims Tort Act, a law enacted by Congress in the late 18th century, originally designed to address damages caused by piracy and provides foreign citizens the right to sue other foreign citizens and entities for abuses of international law. It is estimated than more than 200,000 women were forced into sexual slavery and three-quarters of them did not survive the war. Similar cases have been filed against the Japanese government, but none have prevailed, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (June 14,2003) reports.

Washington, D.C. Federal Judge Henry Kennedy rejected the suit in 2001, concluding that, unlike ordinary prostitution, the atrocities were an aspect of Japanese government policy and thus, not commercial in nature. He scrutinized whether the sexual torture to which the "comfort women" were subjected was actually a "commercial activity" that would permit Japan to be sued, but decided that the case presented a "political question" not suitable for the courts.

Lawyers for Japan contended that the nation enjoys sovereign immunity and that the case raises "political questions" amenable to diplomatic or legislative solutions but not to lawsuits, law.com reports. The State Department also supported Japan's position, citing the 1951 peace treaty as applicable to Japan's sovereign immunity - a position that was hugely criticized by Asian-American activist groups.

The plaintiffs filed an appeal but the United States appeals Court rejected the case in 2003. In July 2004, the Supreme Court overturned the appellate court decision and ordered the appellate court to reconsider the case.

In its opinion, the appellate court said that U.S. courts are not authorized to hear the lawsuit case because the Japanese government had "absolute immunity" from the lawsuit in the United States under legal and political grounds.

"As we said when this case was previously before us, much as we may feel for the plight of the appellants, the courts of the United States simply are not authorized to hear their case," said the appellate court, which first heard the case in 2003. "We hold the appellants' complaint presents a nonjusticiable political question, namely, whether the governments of the appellants' countries resolved their claims in negotiating peace treaties with Japan."

"Our Constitution does not vest the authority to resolve that dispute in courts," the court said, noting that it is "clear the Allied powers intended that all war-related claims against Japan be resolved through government-to-government negotiations rather than through private tort suits."

While Tuesday's judgment is a major blow for the appellants, a court official said the "parties may seek further hearings," Kyodo News reports.

COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: NY Court Grants Motion To Vacate Settlement----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted motions of the objectors to the settlement of the stockholder and derivative litigation filed against Computer Associates International, Inc. and certain of its officers to take limited discovery prior to the Federal Court's approval of the settlement.

The Company, its former Chairman and CEO Charles B. Wang, its former Chairman and CEO Sanjay Kumar, and its Executive Vice President Russell M. Artzt were defendants in a number of stockholder class action lawsuits, the first of which was filed July 23, 1998, alleging that a class consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from January 20, 1998 until July 22, 1998 were harmed by misleading statements, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the Company's future financial performance. These cases, which sought monetary damages, were consolidated into a single action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District ofNew York, the proposed class was certified, and discovery was completed.

Additionally, in February and March 2002, a number of stockholder lawsuits were filed in the Federal Court against the Company and Mr. Wang, Mr. Kumar, Ira H. Zar, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and in one instance, Mr. Artzt. The lawsuits generally alleged, among other things, that the Company made misleading statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading in connection with the Company's financial performance. Each of the named individual plaintiffs in the 2002 lawsuits sought to represent a class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock and call options and sellers of put options for the period from May 28, 1999, through February 25, 2002. The 2002 cases were consolidated, and the Company's former independent auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, was named as a defendant.

In addition, in May 2003, a class action lawsuit captioned "John A. Ambler v. Computer Associates International, Inc., et al." was filed in the Federal Court. The complaint in this matter, a purported class action on behalf of the Computer Associates Savings Harvest Plan (the CASH Plan) and the participants in, and beneficiaries of the CASH Plan for a class period running from March 30, 1998, through May 30, 2003, asserted claims of breach of fiduciary duty under the federal Employee RetirementIncome Security Act (ERISA). The named defendants were the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, the CASH Plan, the Administrative Committee of the CASH Plan, and the following current or former employees and/or directors of the Company:

(1) Charles B. Wang;

(2) Sanjay Kumar;

(3) Ira Zar;

(4) Russell M. Artzt;

(5) Peter A. Schwartz;

(6) Charles P. McWade; and

(7) various unidentified alleged fiduciaries of the CASH Plan

The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by causing the CASH Plan to invest in Company securities and sought damages in an unspecified amount.

A derivative lawsuit was filed against certain current and former directors of the Company, based on essentially the same allegations as those contained in the February and March 2002 stockholder lawsuits discussed above. This action was commenced in April 2002 in Delaware Chancery Court, and an amended complaint was filed in November 2002. The defendants named in the amended complaints were the Company as a nominal defendant, current Company directors Mr. Artzt, Lewis S. Ranieri, and Alfonse M. D'Amato, and former Company directors Ms. Shirley Strum Kenny and Mr. Wang, Mr. Kumar, Willem de Vogel, Richard Grasso, and Roel Pieper.

The derivative suit alleged breach of fiduciary duties on the part of all the individual defendants and, as against the current and former management director defendants, insider trading on the basis of allegedly misappropriated confidential, material information. The amended complaints sought an accounting and recovery on behalf of the Company of an unspecified amount of damages, including recovery of the profits allegedly realized from the sale of common stock of the Company.

On August 25, 2003, the Company announced the settlement of all outstanding litigation related to the above-referenced stockholder and derivative actions as well as the settlement of an additional derivative action filed in the Federal Court in connection with the settlement. As part of the class action settlement, which was approved by the Federal Court in December 2003, the Company agreed to issue a total of up to 5.7 million shares of common stock to the shareholders represented in the three class action lawsuits, including payment of attorneys' fees. In January 2004, approximately 1.6 million settlement shares were issued along with approximately $3.3 million to the plaintiffs' attorneys for attorney fees and related expenses. In March 2004, approximately 0.2 million settlement shares were issued to participants and beneficiaries of the CASH Plan. OnOctober 8, 2004, the Federal Court signed an order approving the distribution of the remaining 3.8 million settlement shares, less administrative expenses. The order was amended in December 2004.

The Company issued the remaining 3.8 million settlement shares in December 2004. Of the 3.8 million settlement shares, approximately 51,000 were used for the payment of administrative expenses in connection with the settlement, approximately 76,000 were liquidated for cash distributions to class members entitled to receive a cash distribution and the remaining settlement shares were distributed to class members entitled to receive a distribution of shares.

In settling the derivative suit, which settlement was also approved by the Federal Court in December 2003, the Company committed to maintain certain corporate governance practices. Under the settlement, the Company and the individual defendants were released from any potential claim by shareholders relating to accounting-related or other public statements made by the Company or its agents from January 1998 through February 2002 (and from January 1998 through May 2003 in the case of the employee ERISA action), and the individual defendants were released from any potential claim by the Company or its shareholders relating to the same matters. Ernst & Young LLP is not a party to the settlement.

The settlement was reviewed by the independent directors who chair the Corporate Governance, Audit, and Compensation and Human Resource Committees of the Board of Directors as well as by all non-interested, independent directors who were not named in any of the suits. It was also approved by the Board's independent directors as a whole.

On October 5, 2004 and December 9, 2004, four purported Company shareholders filed motions to vacate the Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal entered by the Federal Court in December 2003 in connection with the settlement of the derivative action. These motions primarily seek to void the releases that were granted to the individual defendants under the settlement. On December 7, 2004, a motion to vacate the Order of Final Judgment and Dismissal entered by the Federal Court in December 2003 in connection with the settlement of the 1998 and 2002 stockholder lawsuits discussed above was filed by Sam Wyly and certain related parties. The motion seeks to reopen the settlement to permit the shareholders to pursue individual claims against certain present and former officers of the Company. The motion states that these shareholders do not seek to file claims against the Company. These motions have been fully briefed. On June 14, 2005, the Federal Court granted that the motion be allowed to take limited discovery prior to the Federal Court's ruling on these motions. A hearing date has yet to be scheduled.

EMERSON RADIO: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has yet to rule on Emerson Radio Corporation's motion seeking the dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed against it, Geoffrey Jurick, Kenneth Corby and John Raab.

Between September 4, 2003 and October 30, 2003, several putative class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities between January 29, 2003 and August 12, 2003. On December 17, 2003, the Court entered a Joint Stipulation and Order consolidating these putative class actions under the caption "In Re Emerson Radio Corp. Securities Litigation, 03cv4201 (JLL)." Further to that Stipulation and Order, lead plaintiff was appointed and co-lead counsel and co-liaison counsel were approved by the Court in the Consolidated Action. Consistent with the Stipulation and Order, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "Amended Complaint") that, among other things, added Jerome Farnum, one of Emerson's directors, as an individual defendant in the litigation.

Generally, the Amended Complaint alleges that the Company and the Individual Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under, by issuing certain positive statements during the Class Period regarding the Company's ability to replace lost revenues attributable to the Hello Kitty(R) license and omitting to disclose that the Company suffered allegedly soured relationships with its largest retail customers. The Amended Complaint further alleges that these statements were materially false and misleading when made because the Company allegedly misrepresented and omitted certain adverse facts which then existed and disclosure of which was necessary to make the statements not false and misleading.

The Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed and was submitted to the Court on October 15, 2004. The Court's decision on the motion is pending.

FLORIDA: Attorneys' Fees in Hungarian Gold Train Deal Questioned----------------------------------------------------------------The law firms involved in an out-of-court settlement of the Hungarian Gold Train case petitioned the judge for $3.85 million of the $25.5 million that the American government has agreed to pay, The Forward reports.

In their petition, which was filed recently, the lawyers cited the 16,000 hours of work they have put in over the last five years. Though a number of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit provided vocal support for their lawyers, the fee request has drawn criticism from some insiders in the fight for Holocaust restitution.

As previously reported in the June 30, 2004 edition of the Class Action Reporter, families claimed in the suit that an estimated $50 million to $120 million in gold, jewels, art and other valuables was taken from 800,000 Hungarian Jews during the closing days of World War II by Nazi Germany and later by the U.S. Army, from generals on down from the train that wound its way through Hungary and Austria.

The American government denied the train even existed up until 1999. During that period, the Clinton administration's Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets declassified documents from the National Archives that clearly show American soldiers had helped themselves to the Gold Train loot to decorate their villas and officers clubs while overseeing the rebuilding of Europe.

The Commission's findings sparked the filing of the suit in 2001, which was actually the only Holocaust claim to name the United States as a defendant. About 30,000 Hungarian Jews and their survivors seek a trial on class action claims of large-scale looting and official denials about the train.

Eventually, the settlement was reached between the families and the government. That settlement stipulated that individual plaintiffs will not receive any money instead the $21 million is slated for social service agencies serving Hungarian survivors, $3.85 million for legal fees, and $500,000 to set up historical archives. It also stipulates that potential members of the class will be notified and given the opportunity to object. Aside from the money, the settlement also requires the U.S. government to admit plundering Jewish valuables from a Nazi Gold Train and open up historical records.

Since its filing in 2001, the suit against the American government has been controversial, because of the unexpectedly spirited defense put up by the United States Department of Justice and in part because there was little evidence tracing objects on the train to any specific Holocaust survivor.

The lawyers though argued that given the case's difficulty, their fee requests were "deeply discounted." Jonathan Cuneo, the lead counsel from the three law firms working on the case stated in their petition, "We achieved this as a result of a tremendous amount of work. There has to be some reasonable reckoning at the end of the day. Otherwise, no attorney would do this kind of case again."

Roman Kent, a survivor leader who was not involved in the matter, has written to the presiding judge in Miami, U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz, asking her to reject the lawyers' request when she finalizes the settlement in September. Mr. Kent told, the Forward, "I think it's outrageous - scandalous - taking advantage of the survivors and trying to make millions for the lawyers."

In his letter to the judge, Mr. Kent argued that the percentage taken by the lawyers should be closer to what it was in other Holocaust restitution class action suits, like those against the Swiss banks and German industry in which the lawyers took between 1% and 2% of the overall settlement.

The overall settlement was significantly lower than what the plaintiffs had sought originally. When the case began, survivors were asking the American government to pay $10,000 to any qualifying Hungarian survivors - of which there are about 62,000. Because a division of the $25.5 million would have been minuscule, the preliminary settlement allows for no direct payments. Any money the lawyers don't receive will go to social services for needy Hungarian Holocaust survivors.

According to people who took part in the negotiations leading up to the settlement, the lawyers' fees ranging between $450 and $500 an hour for the lead counsels, were one of the major bones of contention during the discussions. Sources told the Forward that the lawyers asked for $5 million, but they were eventually worked down to a $3.85 million cap in the final days of the negotiations. They also stated that other fees have also drawn the ire of critics. For example, Mark Talisman, the former vice chairman of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, charged the law firm $242,500 for the advice he provided to lawyers in the case.

Irving Rosner, an 82-year-old survivor who was the lead plaintiff in the case, told the Forward that he thinks it's mildly unfair that he is not receiving a penny after spending time and energy attending hearings and meetings. But he was quick to point out about the lawyers, "I know they put in a lot of work," and added, "I didn't do it to get money."

GEOPHARMA INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit--------------------------------------------------------------GeoPharma, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it and certain of its officers.

In December 2004 and January 2005, five securities class action lawsuits were filed, alleging violations of federal securities laws in connection with certain press releases issued by the Company relating to Belcher Pharmaceuticals' planned introduction of Mucotrol. The suits were styled:

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, seek unspecified damages allegedly suffered in connection with their respective purchases and sales of the Company's securities during the Class period. On March 9, 2005 the Court consolidated the actions and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On April 18, 2005 plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint. On June 6, 2005 defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the action. Plaintiffs' Opposition papers are due to be filed by July 8, 2005, and defendants' Reply papers are due to be filed by July 25, 2005.

HARVARD MEDICAL: Program Named As Defendant in Crematorium Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------Harvard Medical School's Anatomical Gifts Program, a donor program that makes bodies available for medical training was named as a defendant in the most recent lawsuit filed over alleged mishandling of remains at an unlicensed New Hampshire crematorium that was closed in February, The Associated Press reports.

Filed against Harvard's program and various defendants including Bayview Crematory, the complaint alleges that Harvard failed to uphold promises it made to donors on the disposition of remains after the program was finished with them. The suit, which was filed in Essex Superior Court, also alleges that school failed to ensure that remains turned over to the Seabrook, N.H., crematorium were properly handled and cremated. According to the suit, which seeks damages for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the defendants' actions "rose to the level of mutilation and desecration of the body."

The suit was filed on behalf of Gloucester resident Geraldine Favaloro, who seeks class action status representing other survivors of Harvard program donors whose bodies were turned over to Bayview. The suit states that the body of Ms. Favaloro's mother, Betty Frontiero, was given to Harvard's program after her February 2004 death and cremated nine months later at Bayview.

In a recently issued press statement, Harvard Medical School said that it was "very concerned by the published reports about the alleged practices at Bayview Crematory." It added, "The school did not contract directly with Bayview, and Bayview is no longer used. The school remains committed to the proper handling of anatomical gifts."

Ms. Favaloro's lawsuit is similar to recent lawsuits in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Maine that were filed on behalf of customers of funeral homes that contracted with the crematorium. Those complaints alleged that Bayview commingled bodies while they were cremated, failed to keep accurate records of bodies and either failed to return remains to families or returned them in urns mixed with the ashes from other bodies.

As reported in previous edition of the Class Action Reporter, the Bayview Crematory was shut down after authorities executing a warrant for financial records found a decomposing body in a broken refrigeration unit, two bodies in the same oven and ashes without identification. Bayview had never registered with the state, as required by law, and was never inspected by the state.Prosecutors in Rockingham County, N.H. charged three people in the investigation, including a man who authorities said ran the business.

The consolidated and amended complaint essentially alleged that the Company and the Administrative and Investment Committee of the Plan, breached their fiduciary duties to the Plan participants and beneficiaries by investing in the Company's common stock and failing to disclose information to Plan participants.

A motion to dismiss the complaint was filed in June 2003, which was partially granted in March 2004. The claims that remained essentially alleged that some or all of the defendants failed to prudently manage plan assets by continuing to invest in, or provide matching contributions of, Company stock. On October 8, 2004, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which was approved by the Court in November. The settlement provided for a payment of $46.5 million that was paid into Plan accounts after deduction of plaintiff's legal fees and expenses. The settlement was entirely funded by insurance proceeds.

HPL TECHNOLOGIES: CA Securities Lawsuit Settlement Deemed Final---------------------------------------------------------------The settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against HPL Technologies, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and directors and its independent auditors is deemed final, after plaintiffs did not appeal the approval given by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Between July 31, 2002 and November 15, 2002, several class-action lawsuits were filed and later consolidated into a single action. The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by making a series of material misrepresentations as to the financial condition of the Company during the class period of July 31, 2001 to July 19, 2002.

On March 11, 2005, the court granted final approval of the Securities Class Action settlement. On April 13, 2005, the period for appeals expired, and the settlement is now final. The Company issued 5,319,613 new shares of common stock on May 11, 2005, in consideration for the settlement of the Securities Class Action.

Nampa resident Ralph Gallagher filed the suit on behalf of all Idaho taxpayers, alleging that the state violated its own constitutional requirement that revenue bills originate in the House of Representatives when lawmakers passed the record $190 million tax increases. The suit asks the courts to declare the increases illegal and then give lawmakers a chance to pass new bills.

The House started the cigarette tax bill in 2003 as a measure to adjust the "occupancy tax," which determines when property taxes are assessed on newly occupied property. The Senate changed the bill to one that nearly doubled the state's cigarette tax to 29 cents per pack. The House sales tax bill would have allowed a one-year boost in the tax from 5 percent to 5.5 percent. The Senate made it a full 1-cent increase lasting two years, raising $253 million more in taxes, the Press-Tribune reports. The two-year, 1-cent temporary sales tax expires this Friday.

Mr. Gallagher alleged that the tax legislation was amended so substantially in the Senate that nothing of the original bills remained but their numbers. A unanimous Supreme Court sidestepped much of that issue. Instead, it upheld a lower court ruling that Mr. Gallagher lacked legal standing to challenge the cigarette tax because he wasn't affected differently from other smokers in the state. The court also said the tax legally was on cigarette wholesalers, not individual purchasers, even though wholesalers passed the increase on to consumers.

"Gallagher argued that such an amendment must not amount to a wholesale substitution of the bill, leaving only the bill number intact," Justice Roger Burdick wrote in the ruling, The Press-Tribune reports. That argument, he wrote, "has not been addressed."

Former Idaho Supreme Court Justice Robert Huntley, who represented Gallagher, declined to comment on the case but said he would not appeal the ruling, the Press-Tribune reports.

Boyle Construction Management Co. Inc. of Indianapolis filed a class action complaint against concrete maker Irving Materials Inc., a day after the Greenfield firm pleaded guilty and accepted a $29.2 million fine, the highest fine ever in a domestic antitrust case.

The U.S. Department of Justice's investigators from their Chicago office contend Irving and rivals colluded to set ready mix concrete prices in metropolitan Indianapolis between 2000 and 2004. Irving's rivals were not disclosed by investigators, but now are thought to be coming under examination as the Justice Department widens its probe with the help of current and former Irving executives.

In a separate matter, CWE Concrete Construction Inc., a now closed company in the Indianapolis suburb of Hamilton County, filed two lawsuits in a federal court in Indianapolis. CWE alleges American Concrete Co. Inc. of Indianapolis and Builder's Concrete & Supply Co. Inc. of Fishers each conspired to fix prices, American from 1997 through July 2001, and Builder's Concrete from 2000 through April 2002.

The Boyle and CWE lawsuits though offered no details into how concrete suppliers may have worked together to set prices. But, CWE attorney Gene Leeuw, of the Leeuw Oberlies & Campbell law firm in Indianapolis, told the Indianapolis Star that CWE principal Christopher Elbrecht decided to file the lawsuit after the Irving guilty plea came to light.

Federal investigators said Irving's action drove up the price of ready mix concrete across the Indianapolis area for four years for virtually every home and commercial customer. However, federal officials never disclosed just how much prices were escalated, thus contractors were left trying to figure out if the concrete market was artificially high. Boyle and CWE did not say how much they paid over normal for concrete.

In a related matter, officials at the Indiana Department of Transportation began discussing recently whether to file a lawsuit against Irving in an effort to recoup for any overpayment on concrete used in road projects, according to Gary Abell, a transportation department spokesman. He also told the Indianapolis Star, "We're discussing that right now. We need to see what it might entail. It's no easy undertaking."

The state usually had no direct dealing with Irving, Mr. Abell added. He even pointed out to the Indianapolis Star that the records of Irving concrete purchases are typically buried in paperwork of prime contractors who had hired the Greenfield firm as a supplier to them.

Boyle's case though suggests that the federal inquiry may widen to include concrete purchases in the Chicago area. According to Boyle attorney Irwin Levin, of the Cohen & Malad law firm in Indianapolis, "I don't think it's a coincidence that the Chicago office of the Department of Justice is handling this."

INTEL CORPORATION: AMD Launches Antitrust Violations Suit in DE---------------------------------------------------------------Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) (NYSE:AMD) filed an antitrust complaint against Intel Corporation in the United States District court for the District of Delaware under Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, and the California Business and Professions Code.

The 48-page complaint explains in detail how Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly in the x86 microprocessor market by engaging in worldwide coercion of customers from dealing with AMD. It identifies 38 companies that have been victims of coercion by Intel -- including large scale computer-makers, small system-builders, wholesale distributors, and retailers, through seven types of illegality across three continents.

"Everywhere in the world, customers deserve freedom of choice and the benefits of innovation -- and these are being stolen away in the microprocessor market," said Hector Ruiz, AMD chairman of the board, president and chief executive officer. "Whether through higher prices from monopoly profits, fewer choices in the marketplace or barriers to innovation -- people from Osaka to Frankfurt to Chicago pay the price in cash every day for Intel's monopoly abuses."

x86 microprocessors run the Microsoft Windows(R), Solaris and Linux families of operating systems. Even Apple, a pioneer of the PC and one of the industry's enduring innovators, announced that it would switch exclusively to x86 processors to run Mac OS(R) software beginning in 2006.

Intel's share of this critical market currently counts for about 80 percent of worldwide sales by unit volume and 90 percent by revenue, giving it entrenched monopoly ownership and super-dominant market power. This litigation follows a recent ruling from the Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC), which found that Intel abused its monopoly power to exclude fair and open competition, violating Section 3 of Japan's Antimonopoly Act. These findings reveal that Intel deliberately engaged in illegal business practices to stop AMD's increasing market share by imposing limitations on Japanese PC manufacturers.

Intel did not contest these charges. The European Commission has stated that it is pursuing an investigation against Intel for similar possible antitrust violations and is cooperating with the Japanese authorities.

"You don't have to take our word for it when it comes to Intel's abuses; the Japanese government condemned Intel for its exclusionary and illegal misconduct," said Thomas M. McCoy, AMD executive vice president, legal affairs and chief administrative officer. "We encourage regulators around the world to take a close look at the market failure and consumer harm Intel's business practices are causing in their nations. Intel maintains illegal monopoly profits at the expense of consumers and computer manufacturers, whose margins are razor thin. Now is the time for consumers and the industry worldwide to break free from the abusive Intel monopoly."

The 48-page complaint, drafted after an intensive investigation by AMD's lead outside counsel, Charles P. Diamond of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, details numerous examples of what Diamond describes as "a pervasive, global scheme to coerce Intel customers from freely dealing with AMD to the detriment of customers and consumers worldwide."

According to the complaint, Intel has unlawfully maintained its monopoly by, among other things:

(1) Forcing major customers such as Dell, Sony, Toshiba, Gateway, and Hitachi into Intel-exclusive deals in return for outright cash payments, discriminatory pricing or marketing subsidies conditioned on the exclusion of AMD;

(2) According to industry reports, and as confirmed by the JFTC in Japan, Intel has paid Dell and Toshiba huge sums not to do business with AMD.

(3) Intel paid Sony millions for exclusivity. AMD's share of Sony's business went from 23 percent in '02 to 8% in '03, to 0%, where it remains today.

(4) Forcing other major customers such as NEC, Acer, and Fujitsu into partial exclusivity agreements by conditioning rebates, allowances and market development funds (MDF) on customers' agreement to severely limit or forego entirely purchases from AMD;

(5) Intel paid NEC several million dollars for caps on NEC's purchases from AMD. Those caps assured Intel at least 90% of NEC's business in Japan and imposed a worldwide cap on the amount of AMD business NEC could do.

(6) Establishing a system of discriminatory and retroactive incentives triggered by purchases at such high levels as to have the intended effect of denying customers the freedom to purchase any significant volume of processors from AMD;

(7) When AMD succeeded in getting on the HP retail roadmap for mobile computers, and its products sold well, Intel responded by withholding HP's fourth quarter 2004 rebate check and refusing to waive HP's failure to achieve its targeted rebate goal; it allowed HP to make up the shortfall in succeeding quarters by promising Intel at least 90% of HP's mainstream retail business.

(9) Then-Compaq CEO Michael Capellas said in 2000 that because of the volume of business given to AMD, Intel withheld delivery of critical server chips. Saying "he had a gun to his head," he told AMD he had to stop buying.

(10) According to Gateway executives, their company has paid a high price for even its limited AMD dealings. They claim that Intel has "beaten them into 'guacamole'" in retaliation.

(11) Establishing and enforcing quotas among key retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City, effectively requiring them to stock overwhelmingly or exclusively, Intel computers, artificially limiting consumer choice;

(12) AMD has been entirely shut out from Media Market, Europe's largest computer retailer, which accounts for 35 percent of Germany's retail sales.

(13) Office Depot declined to stock AMD-powered notebooks regardless of the amount of financial support AMD offered, citing the risk of retaliation.

(15) Then-Intel CEO Craig Barrett threatened Acer's Chairman with "severe consequences" for supporting the AMD Athlon 64(TM) launch. This coincided with an unexplained delay by Intel in providing $15-20M in market development funds owed to Acer. Acer withdrew from the launch in September 2003.

(16) Abusing its market power by forcing on the industry technical standards and products that have as their main purpose the handicapping of AMD in the marketplace.

(17) Intel denied AMD access to the highest level of membership for the Advanced DRAM technology consortium to limit AMD's participation in critical industry standard decisions that would affect its business.

(18) Intel designed its compilers, which translate software programs into machine-readable language, to degrade a program's performance if operated on a computer powered by an AMD microprocessor.

To view the full text of the complaint, please visit the Website: http://www.amd.com/breakfree. Leading publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Economist, San Jose Mercury News and CNET have recognized AMD as a leader in microprocessor innovation.

AMD has achieved technological leadership in critical aspects of the x86 market, particularly with its AMD Opteron(TM) microprocessor, the first microprocessor to take x86 computing from 32 to 64 bits, and with its dual-core processors. The company has also stated its commitment to help deliver basic computing and Internet connectivity to 50 percent of the world's population by the year 2015.

In a statement, AMD said, "AMD stands for fair and open competition and the value and variety competition delivers to the marketplace. Innovative AMD technology allows users to break free to reach new levels of performance, productivity and creativity. Businesses and consumers should have the freedom to choose from a range of competitive products that come from continuous innovation. When market forces work, consumers have choice and everyone wins."

For more information, please visit the Company's Website: http://www.amd.com/breakfree. For more details, also contact Dave Kroll, AMD Public Relations by Phone: 408-749-3310 (U.S.), by E-mail: dave.kroll@amd.com; or contact Mike Haase, by Phone: 408-749-3124 (U.S.), by E-mail: mike.haase@amd.com; and Ruth Cotter, by Phone: 408-749-3887 (U.S.) or by E-mail: ruth.cotter@amd.com.

INTERMIX MEDIA: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set September 2005--------------------------------------------------------------Fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Intermix Media, Inc. (formerly eUniverse, Inc.), several of its current and former officers and/or employees and its former auditor is set for September 19,2005 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

The suit arose out of the Company's restatement of quarterly financial results for fiscal year 2003 and includes allegations of, among other things, intentionally false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business prospects, financial condition and performance.

On June 9, 2004, the Court granted the Company's and other defendants' motions to dismiss the lawsuit and plaintiffs were permitted to file an amended complaint. On July 15, 2004, the Securities Litigation was stayed in order to allow the parties to pursue a mediated settlement of the claims asserted in the matter. As a result of the mediation, in November of 2004 lead plaintiff and the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit for $5.5 million in cash, which the Company's insurance carriers have agreed to fund. One of the Company's insurance carriers, from whom the Company expects that approximately $1.5 million of the settlement will be paid, has reserved the right to seek reimbursement from the Company should the carrier dispute that it was obligated to provide coverage for the lawsuit. The parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement in January 2005 pursuant to which the parties propose to settle the Securities Litigation for $5.5 million in cash paid by the Company's insurance carriers. The Court has recently preliminarily approved the settlement and formal notice of the settlement has been mailed to class members. The suit is styled "In Re: eUniverse Inc. Securities Litigation, case no. 03-CV-3272," filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, under Judge George H. King. Representing the plaintiffs was Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.687.1980, Fax: 212.687.7714, E-mail: info@kaplanfox.com. Representing the Company are Joseph H. Park, Richard R. Mainland, and Robert W. Fischer, Fulbright & Jaworski, 865 S Figueroa St, 29TH FL, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2576USA, Phone: 213-892-9200.

On certain 4x2 and 6x4 heavy duty trucks, the positive battery cable between the batteries and the starter may rub against an electrical ground cable between the starter and frame rail. This chafing could cause an electrical short and/or fire.

Dealers will inspect the vehicles to determine if any chafing has occurred between the positive and negative cables. If there is no evidence of chafing, then a saddle clamp will be installed to ensure cables will not rub. If there is evidence of chafing, the damaged cables will be replaced and the swivel saddle clamp installed. The recall is expected to begin on August 26,2005. For more details, contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-448-7825 or contact the NHTSA auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.

LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Settles SEC Financial Reporting Charges--------------------------------------------------------------The Securities and Exchange Commission announced settled financial reporting fraud charges in a lawsuit it previously filed against Donald M. Fitzpatrick, the former Chief Operating Officer and head of sales of Liberate Technologies. The Commission's complaint charged Fitzpatrick with inflating Liberate's revenues through fraudulent sales transactions, and then misleading Liberate's finance department and outside auditors about the deals, in a scheme that ran from November 2001 to September 2002. Liberate is a San Mateo, California-based provider of software and services for interactive television.

In the settlement announced today, Mr. Fitzpatrick consented to a court order that directs him to pay a total of $222,499, consisting of $97,499 in disgorgement of commissions and bonuses plus prejudgment interest, and a monetary penalty of $125,000. In addition, the order bars Fitzpatrick from serving as an officer or director of any publicly traded company, and enjoins him from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-2 thereunder.

Mr. Fitzpatrick consented to the order without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint.

The Commission's complaint, which was filed in September 2004, alleged that Mr. Fitzpatrick used a variety of methods to fraudulently inflate Liberate's financial results. These included arranging a so-called "round-trip" transaction, in which Liberate provided all of the funds that a customer needed to purchase Liberate product; entering into a "side deal" that allowed a customer to return excess Liberate product; and granting undisclosed concessions to induce a customer to purchase Liberate products. In each instance, the complaint alleges, Fitzpatrick misrepresented or withheld key information about the transactions from Liberate's finance department and its outside auditors.

In January 2005, the Commission settled charges against former Liberate sales executive Thomas R. Stitt for his role in the fraud described above. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint, Mr. Stitt consented to a court order that imposed disgorgement and penalties totaling $78,000, as well as a ten-year officer and director bar and an injunction against future securities law violations. The action is styled, SEC v. Donald M. Fitzpatrick and Thomas R. Stitt, Civil Action No. C 04 4120, USDC, NDCA.

MATTEL COMPANY: Plaintiffs Withdraw IL Barbie Collectors Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------Mattel Company and two doll collectors withdrew a massive six-year lawsuit over Barbie doll pricing that was pending in Madison County Circuit Court, The Madison County Record reports.

Previously, Judge Phillip Kardis had planned a June 30 hearing at his Granite City court on all pending motions in the case, however on June 17 attorneys told him to cancel the hearing. The attorneys told the judge that the parties had settled and stipulations would follow.

The protracted legal struggle, which generated a case file four feet thick, was brought by Madison County resident Pamela Cunningham and Cook County resident Reet Caldwell against Mattel in 1999. They were claiming that the toy maker deceptively advertised certain Barbie dolls as limited editions.

Court documents show that Ms. Cunningham was miffed because she bought a $40 doll from a Traveling Sisters set through an "exclusive" offer in a catalog, only to find another retailer selling the doll without the Traveling Sisters label. On another occasion she tried to buy Winter, which is the first doll in a Four Seasons series. Informed that Winter was no longer available, she ordered Spring for about $75, however she later claims that Mattel then contacted her and offered Winter to her.

She and Reet Caldwell alleged breach of contract and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and thus sought certification as representatives of a class of Barbie buyers. Primarily, the case centered on the meaning of "limited edition."

As the case began, discovery disputes dragged on for three years with plaintiffs' attorney Martin Perron of St. Louis blaming Mattel for delays and moving for sanctions.

Defense attorney Phyllis Kupferstein of Los Angeles responded that the motion was "filled with lies." She wrote that Mattel produced thousands of pages of discovery.

In the ensuing court battle, St. Louis University marketing professor James Fisher, an expert for the plaintiffs, said in a deposition that customers generally understood that limited edition meant a product was produced in relatively small numbers.

Mattel attorney Diane Hutnyan of Los Angeles asked Mr. Fisher if 100,000 dolls was a relatively small number. Mr. Fisher said, "No." Ms. Hutnyan asked if 50,000 was a relatively small number. Fisher again said, "No." Ms. Hutnyan then asked if 30,000 was a relatively small number. Finally, Mr. Fisher said, "I think you are - you are trying - Well, I am not going to offer a precise number."

At a hearing in 2002, Mr. Perron told Judge Kardis that limited edition meant a relatively small number. Judge Kardis responded with, "Relative to what?" He thus dismissed the complaint, but he granted Mr. Perron leave to amend it.

In 2003, Judge Kardis certified the suit as a national class action under California law, ruling that Mattel's headquarters were in California, and that it sometimes sold directly to consumers from there. He also ruled that that California law required minimal proof of causation and injury and that even a true statement might violate California law. He also pointed out in his ruling that no defense under statute of limitations would apply.

By that time, however, California voters had begun to understand that their law might have caused great harm. A reform group, Californians to Stop Shakedown Lawsuits, argued that the law turned lawyers into bounty hunters. They placed an initiative on the November 2004 ballot to rewrite the law, which was recently passed.

Judge Kardis thus responded in January by decertifying the Barbie suit as a class action. His ruling meant that Ms. Cunningham and Ms. Caldwell could pursue their claims only as individuals. As individuals, they settled.

MBNA CORPORATION: Keller Rohrback Launches ERISA Investigation--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. launched an investigation against MBNA Corporation ("MBNA" or the "Company") (NYSE:KRB) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The investigation is regarding the investments in Company stock by the MBNA Corp. 401(k) Plus Savings Plan (the "Plan").

Keller Rohrback's investigation focuses on concerns that MBNA and other Plan administrators may have breached their ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence to participants and beneficiaries of the Plan. A breach may have occurred if the fiduciaries failed to manage the assets of the Plan prudently and loyally by investing a significant amount of the assets in Company stock when it was no longer a prudent investment for participants' retirement savings. A breach also may have occurred if the fiduciaries withheld or concealed material information from participants and beneficiaries of the Plan with respect to the Company's business, financial results, and operations, thereby encouraging participants and beneficiaries to continue to make and maintain substantial investments of Company stock in the Plan.

Though none admitted to having provided the document to the news cooperative the effects of its being published were very damaging. The document, inadvertently given by Merck to plaintiff lawyers during evidence gathering in one of the hundreds of Vioxx lawsuits, indicated Merck scientists were mulling combining Vioxx with another compound to lower the risk of heart attacks and strokes. It appeared to undermine Merck's statements that company officials believed the drug was safe before they pulled it from the market last September after a Merck study showed long-term Vioxx use increased heart attack and stroke risk.

Judge Carol E. Higbee in Atlantic City ruled on May 27 that the document was privileged and could not be used at trial and thus ordered attorneys with copies to destroy them or return them to Merck immediately.

The Associated Press reported details in the document on June 22. A copy of the document, which the Whitehouse Station, New Jersey-based Merck insisted was an attorney-client communication between company scientists and in-house patent counsel, was provided to The Associated Press on the condition that its source not be identified.

Judge Higbee's clerk, who asked not to be identified by name, told AP that the judge asked plaintiff attorneys whether they or any associates had seen the document, had disclosed it to the press or knew who had. He also adds that further hearings involving both plaintiff and defense attorneys were scheduled for Friday and for July 12.

According to experts familiar with the matter, If Judge Higbee can determine who is responsible the judge would then hold further proceedings to determine whether to impose sanctions, find the attorney in contempt of court or pursue some other option, the unidentified clerk said.

In a related matter, during a second Vioxx-related hearing before Judge Higbee, attorneys gave oral arguments as to whether the judge should grant class action status for a consumer fraud lawsuit filed on behalf of a labor union health care plan, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 Welfare Fund.

Attorneys Christopher Seeger and David Buchanan, representing the fund, are asking Judge Higbee to allow them to sue Merck on behalf of third-party health payors nationwide, such as HMOs and other insurers, alleging that Merck committed fraud by not disclosing important information about Vioxx.

Merck outside counsel Jeffrey Judd told AP afterward that he argued before the judge that she should not allow a class action suit, stating that consumer fraud laws vary considerably from state to state and that third-party payors had different information and did individual analyses in deciding whether to cover Vioxx under prescription drug plans. Following the 3 1/2-hour hearing, Judge Higbee stated that she would consider the information and issue a ruling later.

Mr. Seeger, of New York City, is co-lead counsel on the plaintiffs' steering committee guiding the initial phase of federal Vioxx lawsuits. They have been consolidated under U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon in New Orleans until evidence gathering is complete. Those cases will then go back to their original jurisdictions for trial.

MISSOURI: Federal Judge Denies Legal Move to Block Medicaid Cuts ----------------------------------------------------------------A federal judge in Missouri denied a legal attempt to block the first round of cuts in the state's Medicaid program from taking effect, The Associated Press reports.

As previously reported in the July 1, 2005 edition of the Class Action Reporter, Medicaid recipients initiated a federal lawsuit against the state, seeking to halt budget cuts that would begin eliminating health care coverage for thousands of low-income parents.

Seeking class action status and an injunction preventing anyone from losing Medicaid benefits, the suit contends that the Department of Social Services violated constitutional due process rights by not providing parents adequate notice of the cuts, and that department errors in calculating eligibility will mean the erroneous terminations of thousands of people.

The Welfare Law Center in New York and the National Health Law Program in Washington, D.C. brought the suit on behalf of three St. Louis mothers.

The Medicaid cuts were a key component of Republican Gov. Matt Blunt's effort to balance the budget without tax increases. The Republican-led Legislature passed them over the objections of many Democrats and despite repeated protests by Medicaid recipients and activists.

During the fiscal year, which that started on Friday, more than 90,000 of Missouri's 1 million Medicaid recipients are to be dropped from the list of recipients. Hundreds of thousands of adults remaining on Medicaid are to receive fewer benefits while paying more out-of-pocket through premiums, co-payments and personal medical expenses.

U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey heard arguments for a temporary restraining order right after the suit was filed, however, she swiftly denied the request a few hours later.

The suit also contends that 17 percent of parents on Medicaid will be inadvertently cut off because the department made errors in determining their eligibility and that the cutoff notices were too complicated to understand.

NATIONAL AUTO: Finalizes Settlement of All Shareholder Lawsuits---------------------------------------------------------------National Auto Credit, Inc. (OTC/BB:NAKD) ("NAC" or "the Company") consummated its previously disclosed agreement to settle all outstanding shareholder litigation and repurchase 1,562,500 shares of NAC Common Stock from unaffiliated third parties, Academy Capital Management, Inc., Diamond A. Partners, L.P., Diamond A. Investors, L.P., Ridglea Investor Services, Inc. and William S. Banowsky ("the Selling Stockholders"). The stock purchase transaction was effected in connection with the previously disclosed settlement and dismissal of class action and shareholder derivative litigation that had been pending in New York and Delaware courts.

In the stock repurchase, NAC purchased the shares of the Selling Stockholders at a price of $0.6732 per share (or a total purchase price of $1,051,875). As a consequence of the stock repurchase, the number of shares of NAC common stock outstanding decreased 15.6%, from 10,102,614 shares to 8,540,114 shares.

NAC also confirmed today that all of the previously disclosed shareholder class and derivative litigation brought against the Company and certain current and former members of its Board of Directors in New York and Delaware state courts have been dismissed with prejudice.

As a consequence of the settlement of the class and derivative action in New York ("the New York Settlement") becoming final and effective, among other things, NAC will be implementing certain previously disclosed corporate governance procedures and policies. NAC will also be issuing to the class of NAC shareholders who had continuously held NAC common stock from December 14, 2000 through December 24, 2002, up to one million warrants (one warrant per 8.23 shares of Common Stock). Each warrant will have a five-year term and will be exercisable for shares of NAC Common Stock at a price of $1.55 per share. In order to qualify for the issuance of said warrants, members of the shareholder class must have delivered to the Company by December 12, 2005 a valid Proof of Claim in accordance with the notice and instructions previously delivered to the shareholder class.

Further, on June 16, 2005, NAC received the proceeds of the $2.5 million Settlement Fund, which had been held in escrow until the New York Settlement became fully effective. NAC used $1,666,875 of the proceeds from the Settlement Fund to acquire the 1,562,500 shares of NAC Common Stock from the Selling Shareholders, to pay the Court-approved legal fees of the plaintiff's counsel in the New York action, and to reimburse a portion of the expenses of the Selling Shareholders. The remaining $833,000 from the Settlement Fund will be used by NAC for general working capital.

Mr. James McNamara, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, stated, "The consummation of this settlement, and the reduction of the number of shares outstanding gives every shareholder an increased ownership interest in NAC and allows the management team to focus its energy and attention on expanding its corporate communications and entertainment businesses."

The lawsuit charged the hospital of overcharging uninsured patients and using aggressive means to collect payments. The suit is similar to dozens of lawsuits filed against various hospitals across the nation.

Phoebe Health System executives hailed Judge Harvey Bartle's ruling. "We are ecstatic. We are thrilled," hospital attorney Rick Langley told WALB. "The dismissal of the Phoebe lawsuits in the Superior Court today marks the first case heard by a state court judge that addressed the merits of the case."

Hospital critics, like Dr. John Bagnato, however said the fight was not yet over. "We know they're charging the uninsured patients the highest amounts of anybody and they say they can't help it and that's the way it works. Well, you can charge them and discount them but they don't do that routinely," Mr. Bagnato told WALB. Mr. Bagnato's investigations into Phoebe prompted him to contact Mississippi lawyer Richard Scruggs, who has filed over 50 similar suits nationwide.

"These rulings in favor of Phoebe come despite the fact that Dr. Bagnato took these cases to one of the richest and most famous trial lawyers of all times," Mr. Griffin told WALB. Those cases were thrown out by a federal judge.

Mr. Bagnato says he wasn't surprised then and he isn't with Monday's decision in Superior Court. "It's really not surprising again. These cases are very political," Mr. Bagnato told WALB. What he feels it comes down to is litigation and legal technicalities and that the only remedy to the whole problem will be reform. "What I hope happens is that the board is accountable to the people and that Mr. Wernick decides that the time for him to go is come. I think he should resign," he added.

Regardless of whether it's Phoebe itself or it's president, the hospital is thankful for Monday's announcement. "At this moment there are no class action lawsuits, federal or state pending against this hospital. Every single one of them has been dismissed," Mr. Langley told WALB.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles Lawsuit Over Homestore.com Audit----------------------------------------------------------------The California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) reached a preliminary settlement of $17.5 million with PricewaterhouseCoopers in a class action lawsuit accusing the accounting firm of violating its professional responsibilities in its audits of Homestore.com Inc. in 2000 and 2001.

The settlement, reached between the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers and CalSTRS, the lead plaintiff, was submitted today to U.S. District Court Judge Ronald S. W. Lew of Los Angeles for review. If Lew grants preliminary approval, a final settlement hearing date will be set.

In agreeing to the settlement, PricewaterhouseCoopers did not admit to any wrongdoing.

"This settlement is another step forward in our goal to help compensate those who lost money they invested in Homestore," said Jack Ehnes, chief executive officer of CalSTRS. "We want to send a clear message to the market place that all parties are accountable when shareholders suffer due to corporate misconduct."

CalSTRS filed suit Nov. 15, 2002, against Homestore.com, several of its officers and PricewaterhouseCoopers accusing the company and other defendants of falsifying financial statements and engaging in accounting irregularities to meet Wall Street expectations.

In August, 2003, Homestore.com agreed to a settlement to reform its corporate policies, pay $13 million in cash to the class and turn over 20 million shares of stock. The stock was valued at about $4 a share at the time of the settlement.

All but two of the company officers named in the suit also reached settlements, leaving legal action pending against Stuart H. Wolff, former chief executive officer and chairman of the board; and Peter B. Tafeen, former executive vice president, business development and sales.

The suit is being prosecuted on behalf of CalSTRS and the class by Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy of Burlingame, California, lead counsel, and co-counsel Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Pearson of Tarzana, California.

The class covers all persons who purchased or acquired Homestore common stock from January 1, 2000 through December 21, 2001.

SELECTICA INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed against Selectica, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation (CSFB), as underwriters of the Company's March 13,2005 initial public offering (IPO).

Between June 5, 2001 and June 22, 2001, four securities class action complaints were filed. On August 9, 2001, these actions were consolidated before a single judge along with cases brought against numerous other issuers, their officers and directors and their underwriters, that make similar allegations involving the allocation of shares in the IPOs of those issuers. The consolidation was for purposes of pretrial motions and discovery only. On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint asserting essentially the same claims as the original complaints.

The amended complaint alleges that the officer and director defendants, CSFB and thje Company violated federal securities laws by making material false and misleading statements in the prospectus incorporated in the Company's registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC in March 2000 in connection with the Company's IPO. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that CSFB solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions from several investors in exchange for which CSFB allocated to those investors material portions of the restricted number of shares of common stock issued in the Company's IPO. The complaint further alleges that CSFB entered into agreements with its customers in which it agreed to allocate the common stock sold in the Company's IPO to certain customers in exchange for which such customers agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's common stock in the after-market at pre-determined prices. The complaint also alleges that the underwriters offered to provide positive market analyst coverage for the Company's after the IPO, which had the effect of manipulating the market for the Company's stock.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the officer and director defendants, along with other issuers and their related officer and director defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss based on common issues. Opposition and reply papers were filed and the Court heard oral argument. Prior to the ruling on the motion to dismiss, on October 8, 2002, the individual officers and directors entered into a stipulation of dismissal and tolling agreement with plaintiffs. As part of that agreement, plaintiffs dismissed the case without prejudice against the individual defendants. The Court ordered the dismissal of the officers and directors without prejudice on October 9, 2002. The Court rendered its decision on the motion to dismiss onFebruary 19, 2003, denying dismissal of the Company.

On June 25, 2003, a Special Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company approved a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") reflecting a settlement in which the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case against the Company with prejudice in return for the assignment by the Company of certain claims that the Company might have against its underwriters. The same offer of settlement was made to all the issuer defendants involved in the litigation. No payment to the plaintiffs by the Company is required under the MOU. After further negotiations, the essential terms of the MOU were formalized in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which has been executed on behalf of the Company. The settling parties presented the proposed Settlement papers to the Court on June 14, 2004 and filed formal motions seeking preliminary approval on June 25, 2004. The underwriter defendants, who are not parties to the proposed Settlement, filed a brief objecting to its terms on July 14, 2004.

On February 15, 2005, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement conditioned on the agreement of the parties to narrow one of a number of the provisions intended to protect the issuers against possible future claims by the underwriters. The Company re-approved the Settlement with the proposed modifications that were outlined by the Court in its February 15, 2005 Order granting preliminary approval. Approval of any settlement involves a three-step process in the district court - a preliminary approval, determination of the appropriate notice of the settlement to be provided to the settlement class, anda final fairness hearing. At a hearing on April 13, 2005, the Court set January 6, 2006 as the date for the final fairness hearing. There are still discussions regarding the form of the notice for the final hearing, which will be sent out in September 2005. There can be no assurance that the Court will approve the settlement.

In the meantime, the plaintiffs and underwriters have continued to litigate the consolidated action. The litigation is proceeding through the class certification phase by focusing on six cases chosen by the plaintiffs and underwriters ("focus cases"). The Company is not a focus case. On October 13, 2004, the Court certified classes in each of the six focus cases. The underwriter defendants have sought review of that decision. Along with the other non-focus case issuer defendants, the Company has not participated in the class certification phase.The plaintiffs' money damage claims include prejudgment and post-judgement interest, attorneys' and experts' witness fees and other costs, as well as other relief to which the plaintiffs may be entitled should they prevail.

The suit is styled "In Re Selectica, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

Former employee Kenneth Henderson brought this class action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees, alleging causes of action, for:

(1) failure to provide required meal periods,

(2) failure to authorize or permit rest periods,

(3) failure to provide compensation for split shifts,

(4) failure to reimburse employees for uniforms,

(5) failure to maintain required records,

(6) penalties for terminated employees who were not fully compensated,

(7) penalties for failure to pay employees all wages at least twice a month, and

(8) violation of Business and Professions Code Section l7,200

Plaintiffs basically allege that hourly employees were regularly denied their required meal periods and rest periods and were not paid premiums for split shifts. They further allege that the Company required its employees to wear uniforms but did not pay for the uniforms. Plaintiffs seek a class action in which they demand various wages, premiums, interest, and penalties for these alleged violations. They also seek attorneys' fees and an injunction.

The Company answered the complaint, denying the material allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses. The parties have engaged in significant discovery and Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Class Certification, which will be heard on July 13, 2005. The Company opposed the Motion for Class Certification. No trial date has been set. The Court will likely order the parties to a settlement conference or mediation.

UNITED STATES: FAA Workers Weigh Legal Action in Pay Cap Dispute----------------------------------------------------------------A group of Federal Aviation Administration employees, who are unhappy with caps placed on their compensation, might pursue their grievance in the federal courts, according to people involved in the complaint, The GovExec.com reports.

Earlier this year that group filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging age discrimination, because most of those affected by the cap are experienced older workers.

However, "nothing's been happening with the EEOC," said Tim O'Hara, the leader of the group adding, "We expected at this point to at least have a hearing scheduled with them. We've heard nothing from them. Literally nothing."

Under the FAA's pay for performance system, almost 2,000 long-term employees are at the top of their pay bands and cannot receive base salary increases. While they are eligible for annual awards for good performance, they say they are losing thousands of dollars in retirement benefits, locality pay increases and overtime pay.

At the same time, thousands of other FAA employees are not affected by the salary freeze because of union agreements, or because they already were above the maximum pay limit when the rule on pay caps went into effect. Employees with frozen base salaries have alleged that the differing compensation rules are unfair. Agency officials say that the solution to the disparity is to bring more employees under the pay cap system, not to exempt the affected 2,000.

On February 28, the employees filed a class action complaint with the FAA's equal employment opportunity office. Subsequently, that complaint was forwarded to the EEOC. Since then, according to Barbara Kraft, an attorney representing the employees, "EEOC hasn't done anything, and people are concerned about that. I am surprised that it is taking this long."

Ms. Kraft told GovExec.com, however, that she is not implying that there is any intentional delay on the part of the government adding, "I know that the EEOC is very busy. All of these enforcement agencies have resources issues."

The FAA employees still will pursue their complaint with the EEOC, but they are also lining up behind one worker, in the hopes that a federal district court judge might allow the employee's complaint to be converted into a class action lawsuit.

According to Ms. Kraft, the FAA employees will attempt to pursue their complaints on parallel tracks while not sacrificing their rights in either forum. She adds, "We feel like we are in between a procedural rock and a hard place. The concern is not to waive any rights."

WESTERN GAS: Reaches Settlement For Natural Gas Litigation in NY----------------------------------------------------------------Western Gas Resources, Inc. ("Western") (NYSE: WGR) entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement in the previously disclosed action In re: Natural Gas Commodity Litigation, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 03-CV-6186 (vm) (S.D.N.Y.), concerning inaccurate reporting of natural gas trading information to energy industry trade publications. Western has not admitted liability in this matter.

In the second quarter of 2005, Western will record an after-tax charge to earnings of $3.7 million, or $0.05 per common share in connection with this settlement.

If approved by the court, the settlement of $5.95 million will conclude the matter as against Western, who was joined to the action on September 17, 2004, by the plaintiffs, natural gas futures contract traders on the NYMEX, on behalf of themselves and a putative class of others similarly situated. In the complaint, the plaintiffs had alleged that Western had manipulated the prices of natural gas futures on the NYMEX in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, or CEA, by reporting allegedly "inaccurate, misleading and false trading information" to trade publications that compile and publish indices of natural gas spot prices. In addition, the complaint asserted that Western aided and abetted the alleged CEA violations of others.

WORLDCOM INC.: Ex-CEO Stripped of Assets as Part of Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------Former WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers, who is a defendant in a class action lawsuit brought by angry investors who lost billions of dollars when WorldCom went under in the largest bankruptcy in U.S. history in 2002, will give up nearly everything he owns including his Mississippi home and his stake in a golf course in a settlement with said investors, The Associated Press reports.

Court documents revealed that Mr. Ebbers, who faces sentencing on July 13 for his role in the WorldCom debacle, will pay $5 million up front and place the rest of his assets in a trust to be sold off for an estimated $25 million to $40 million. The cash from his assets will then be added to the more than $6 billion paid by former WorldCom, Inc. directors, major investment banks that underwrote WorldCom securities and auditing firm Arthur Andersen, who are all defendants in the suit.

New York Comptroller Alan Hevesi, the lead plaintiff in the suit on behalf of the state employees pension fund, hailed the settlement as a win for the millions who lost money. He told AP, "This is an important step in conveying a message that the crimes committed by Mr. Ebbers and others in the series of securities scandals will be responded to very, very forcefully."

As part of the settlement, the government will not seek restitution when Mr. Ebbers, 63, is sentenced. Instead, federal prosecutors have asked a judge to send him to prison for the rest of his life. A federal judge though must still approve the settlement.

Authorities involved in the settlement told AP that Mr. Ebbers, who was convicted in March of fraud, conspiracy and false regulatory filings in the $11 billion accounting fraud at WorldCom, the largest in history, must sell his multimillion-dollar home in Clinton, Mississippi, and his family must move out of it by October 31.

In addition, Mr. Ebbers' property, including thousands of acres of timberland and his stakes in a golf course, a lumber company, a trucking company and a rice farm, will go into a liquidation trust, authorities said.

For most of the property, 75 percent of the proceeds will go to the investors. MCI, the post bankruptcy version of WorldCom, Inc. will get 25 percent.

Sean Coffey, a lawyer for Mr. Hevesi, told AP that a "modest" living allowance would be made for Mr. Ebbers' wife, Kristie, though he refused give the amount. Money will also be set aside for Mr. Ebbers' legal bills, he adds.

Five other former WorldCom executives who pleaded guilty in the fraud and helped the government prosecute Mr. Ebbers will be sentenced after him later this summer. Three of them are the remaining defendants in the class action investor suit. Mr. Coffey also told AP that he expected settlements soon with those three.

New Securities Fraud Cases

CONAGRA FOODS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NE----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Nebraska on behalf of purchasers of ConAgra Foods, Inc. ("ConAgra" or the "Company") (NYSE: CAG) common stock during the period between September 18, 2003 and June 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges ConAgra and Bruce Rohde with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ConAgra operates as a packaged food company serving grocery retailers, restaurants, and other food service establishments, as well as food processors. The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period representations regarding ConAgra were materially false and misleading when made for the following reasons:

(1) that the Company's net income figures were overstated due to improper accounting for income taxes;

(2) that as a result of this, the Company's financial results were in violation of generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP");

(3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

(4) that the Company's financial results were materially inflated at all relevant times; and

(5) that as a result of the above, the Company's projections were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On March 24, 2005, the Company announced it would be restating its financial statements for fiscal 2002 through the first half of fiscal 2005 due to improper accounting for income taxes. ConAgra stock fell to around $26 per share on this news. Then, on June 7, 2005, the Company announced that its fiscal 2005 fourth quarter would be lower than expected primarily due to continued weak profitability in the packaged meats operations. On this news, the stock fell further to $24.32 per share.

DRDGOLD LIMITED: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY----------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of DRDGOLD Limited (NASDAQ: DROOY), formerly known as Durban Roodepoort Deep, Limited, securities during the period between October 23, 2003 and February 24, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges DRDGOLD and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DRDGOLD is a gold exploration and mining company. The Company operates gold mines through its South African and Australasian operations.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants made numerous statements regarding:

(1) the successful restructuring of the Company's North West Operations in South America;

(2) the Company's ability to reduce the negative impact of the increasing value of the South African Rand versus the U.S. Dollar; and

(3) the increasing strength of the Company's balance sheet.

In fact, the Company's problems with its North West Operations were never fully resolved and resulted in the Company being forced to record an impairment charge for the full value of its mining assets there. Moreover, despite representations to the contrary, the Company continued to be negatively impacted by the increasing value of the South African Rand. As detailed in the complaint, these problems resulted in the Company being forced to announce that it might not be able to operate as a going concern. When this information was belatedly disclosed to the public, shares of DRDGOLD fell more than 25%, on extraordinarily heavy volume.

EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NJ----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers of Exide Technologies (Nasdaq: XIDE) ("Exide" or the "Company") between November 16, 2004 and May 17, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Exide, Gordon A. Ulsh, Craig Muhlhauser, J. Timothy Gargaro, and Ian J. Harvie with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

(1) that the Company failed to adequately hedge against the increases in the price of lead and other commodities;

(2) that the Company's restructuring initiatives failed to reduce costs;

(3) that the Company would not properly forecast its inventory requirements;

(4) that the Company overstated its income by failing to write-down the value of obsolescent inventory and discontinued product lines;

(5) that the Company failed to comply with the provisions of contract with a large customer; and

(6) that the Company was in violation of the EBITDA and Leverage Ratio Covenants on its senior credit facility.

On May 16, 2005, Exide announced that it expected it would be in violation of its minimum consolidated EBITDA and leverage ratio financial covenants in its $365 million senior credit facility as of and for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2005. In response to this news, the price of Exide stock fell $4.27 per share, or 38.3 percent, on May 16, 2005, to close at $6.88 per share, on extremely heavy volume. On May 17, 2005, Exide held a conference call to discuss its perilous financial position. During the call, they reiterated the fact that they were in violation of covenants in the Company's senior credit facility and defendants described in detail various inventory and contractual issues that contributed to the earnings miss. In reaction to this news, the price of Exide shares fell another $1.55 per share, or 22.53 percent, on May 17, 2005, to close at $5.33 per share.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against defendant Hilb Rogal, Andrew L. Rogal, Martin L. Vaughan, III, Timothy J. Korman, Carolyn Jones, Robert W. Blanton, Jr. and Robert B. Lockhart. The action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

LAZARD LTD.: Zwerling Schacter Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP, initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common stock of Lazard Ltd. ("Lazard" or the "Company") (NYSE: LAZ) issued in connection with the initial public offering of Lazard shares (the "IPO") together with those who purchased shares in the open market between May 4, 2005 and May 12, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The deadline to file a motion seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff is August 15, 2005.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement/Prospectus was false and misleading when issued because the Registration Statement/Prospectus failed to disclose that:

(1) the basis for the $25 a share price for shares sold in the IPO was to enable Bruce Wasserstein ("Wasserstein") the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to raise sufficient funds to gain control of the Company from Michel David Weill ("Weill");

(2) prior to the IPO, market demand had indicated that the appropriate price for the IPO was only around $22 per share and not the $25 a share level;

(3) to create a market and thereby manufacture an appearance that Lazard's IPO was fairly and properly priced, Goldman Sachs & Co. ("Goldman") arranged to sell millions of shares to hedge funds with side agreements that those hedge funds could immediately "flip the shares" and that Goldman would immediately repurchase them;

(4) defendants had failed to adequately and fully comply with S-K item 505 which requires a prospectus to describe "the various factors considered in determining the offering price" when common shares without an established public trading market are also being registered, and

(5) Gerardo Braggiotti, a major contributor of new business for the Company, whose unit accounted for roughly 20% of the Company's global advisory revenues, was likely to resign from the Company as he opposed the IPO and Wasserstein's purchase of Weill's shares.

On May 12, 2005, several days after the IPO and after Goldman ceased buying back Lazard shares; the Company's common stock fell below $21 a share.

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.